This is the Lincolnshire force we're talking about. They've used tasers against children as young as 10 as well as a 78 year old Thank god we don't give them guns.Well for one the word 'used' with regard to 10 year olds I know for a fact is not actually 'used' in the true sense, you mean a taser was drawn. The youngest person a taser was actually used on was I think 14 and as we all know some 14 year olds are almost men these days.In any case, if a situation would decree that others are in danger and to cause the least amount of harm a taser is the best solution why is that a problem? Or are you suggesting that being coshed with a truncheon or 3 officers driving you to the ground whilst you're holding a knife or other weapon with all the potential dangers that posesses (for both officers & other person) is the best alternate? Whilst my respect for the police is waning can we at least have accuracy with regard to how tasers etc are 'used' and not garbage that crops up in the headline of the daily fail only for the actual real 'facts' to appear right at the bottom of said article

I hope the bruises heal quickly. Violence, or even the threat of violence, leaves a nasty feeling for a long time. Fortunately, most people out there, whatever their mode of transport, are as repelled by violence as we are.

My half jokey comment about my size deterring the less caring drivers from colliding with me is applicable where I take up a position away from the gutter, giving a driver the choice of waiting or hitting me with the front of the car. My size is obviously less of a deterrent where a driver thinks he / she can just squeeze around the side.No bruises, just a glancing blow. Reported to the police but I don't expect any results. They have more to do than chase a handbag swinging Neanderthal.My road position was his problem. He couldn't understand why I wasn't hugging the parked cars.& I was going with the flow of traffic anyway so not hindering his speed in anyway, just denting the idiots ego I suppose.I do need to keep my mouth shut though.He had followed me for someway & there was lots of engine revving intimidation before he finally passed. When he did & hurled a load of abuse I'm afraid I did tell him to fornicate off.Better to just ignore & keep smiling.

Phil Fouracre wrote:...I think I've been given a greater amount of space riding our local A road when in tee shirt, shorts, 'floppy hat' and sandals (not what you'd call trendy, but........!)I've noticed that, too. The less like a "proper" cyclist I look, the more courtesy I receive. Weird!

I'd steer clear of the Little Hulton section for a while. I rode it yesterday on my way to exploring the Bridgewater through Astley to Pennington Flash and I was practically swimming through broken bottle glass. I've not checked the Hypers yet and they didn't puncture for once but I fear looking them over in case I don't like what I find.I have to admire the anti motorcycle barriers on the Bridgewater. Whoever designed them needs to be publicly stoned.

I hope the bruises heal quickly. Violence, or even the threat of violence, leaves a nasty feeling for a long time. Fortunately, most people out there, whatever their mode of transport, are as repelled by violence as we are.

My half jokey comment about my size deterring the less caring drivers from colliding with me is applicable where I take up a position away from the gutter, giving a driver the choice of waiting or hitting me with the front of the car. My size is obviously less of a deterrent where a driver thinks he / she can just squeeze around the side.

The old railway line that runs from Monton to Little Hulton has been upgraded as far as Walkden. This route goes along the NCN 55 along the old trackbed.

Previously the surface was in a poor condition, but now has super smooth tarmac and connects to the limestone hard-packed surface making journeys between Walkden and Manchester road bike friendly. This means you can cycle to Manchester via Eccles avoiding the A6 and the Salford end of the East Lancs Cycle Path which is impacted by the Busway construction.

My calves have been exposed year round, full length tights have been put in one of those vacuum sealed bags. Most of the riding over the winter has been in 3/4 bibs or bibs and knee warmers, there has been days where no covering was worn on the knees.

Freddie wrote:pete75 wrote:1. So only black people can suffer from racism? 2. I've no more reason to believe what he says than I have to doubt it. It's hearsay - it may have happened it may not have happened.3. Going from hearsay to fact is hardly a slip of the tongue. Somebody told me so and so did that is hearsay. I saw so and so do that is fact. The difference is hardly a subtle one.1. No, racism is between different racial groups. White people cannot be racist towards other white people. This is really simple stuff. I suppose people are confused about it because the word racism has been spread so far and thin, that incidents that it doesn't cover can now take advantage of the utility of a claim of racism.2. That may be so, but I think you would change your tune quickly if approached by a "foreign speaking man" in a similar situation, you'd be gone like a shot. Hopefully you'd give the OP some credit then too. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. You do not think that, that is our fundamental disagreement.3. I said it was a slip of the tongue. You hold this slip of the tongue up as good reason to doubt the OPs intentions, when I think it was just a slip of the tongue. 1. So you know the person who allegedly told him this tale was white do you? We know neither the race of his informant nor of the alleged offender. Anyhow your definition of racism is rather old fashioned. The definition of a racist incident accepted by the CPS is '˜... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."'and by the United Nations as 'the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin'. 2. There you are wrong you neither know me nor how I react in any given situation. We are both entitled to hold whatever views we like of what's said by the OP. As I said I know not whether he speaks truthfully or falsely and he certainly doesn't know the same for his original informant. 3. Just because you claim it to be slip of the tongue doesn't make it so.

pete75 wrote:1. So only black people can suffer from racism? 2. I've no more reason to believe what he says than I have to doubt it. It's hearsay - it may have happened it may not have happened.3. Going from hearsay to fact is hardly a slip of the tongue. Somebody told me so and so did that is hearsay. I saw so and so do that is fact. The difference is hardly a subtle one.1. No, racism is between different racial groups. White people cannot be racist towards other white people. This is really simple stuff. I suppose people are confused about it because the word racism has been spread so far and thin, that incidents that it doesn't cover can now take advantage of the utility of a claim of racism.2. That may be so, but I think you would change your tune quickly if approached by a "foreign speaking man" in a similar situation, you'd be gone like a shot. Hopefully you'd give the OP some credit then too. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. You do not think that, that is our fundamental disagreement.3. I said it was a slip of the tongue. You hold this slip of the tongue up as good reason to doubt the OPs intentions, when I think it was just a slip of the tongue.

Everyone joining this forum is entitled to launch in with their first post by stating a point of view, of course, but I'd strongly advise the OP in this thread to use a bit of diplomacy. It's seen as a matter of common courtesy not to be too controversial right from the start. And I'm afraid the phrase "foreign speaking man" does have an air of controversy about it, as the development of this rather unpleasant thread has borne out.

I'm reminded of my first post here, when I re-joined this forum a few years ago after a lengthy break from forumming. In it I described a crash I'd just had, in which I was knocked off by a car turning right across my path. That incident was indeed my reason for joining in the first place. Now, I could have included, with absolute truthfulness, the little detail that the car driver was of south Asian appearance, name and accent, and was dressed in traditional Muslim attire. I left out that detail because it was totally irrelevant to the case - and would have merely served to stoke up controversy and accusations of racism! I only mention the fact now, over two years later, because it is pertinent to the discussion pervading this thread, and for no other reason. I think the OP should take heed.

Racial and other prejudice has no place on this forum, and we should take care not to arouse suspicions of harbouring those prejudices, even when we post with complete sincerity.

honesty wrote:3 things were used to describe the assailant:1. Young. 2. Male.3. Foreign.

Each plays to either conscious or unconscious stereotypes we have. A person will react to these stereotypes in specific ways. Stating these descriptors can reinforce the linkages between those stereotypes and certain types of behaviour. All young people are up to no good, cyclists jump red lights, footballers are wimps, farmers are backwards, and so on. Race can be a particularly emotive one as we are trained that racism is bad whilst being fed white superiority at a societal level (just what tv and see who is cast as the drug dealer and who as the hero for example). The other thing is we are so deeply drilled into accepting division by age or sex that race is seen here as the only defining characteristic, which is interesting in and of itself.

Either way, none of the descriptive points are actually relevant. We cant identify the attacker from them and almost certainly don't know the victim so in reality it's completely unnecessary information.I'm sorry, but so what. I fit two out of three of those descriptors and I don't feel in the slightest bit maligned for it. It is potentially useful information. In the aftermath of a criminal event, the victim is hardly likely to remember if the perpetrator was 5'9" or 5'11", but he will remember their age, sex, potential accent and possibly hair colour and clothing.

This deep analysis you have subjected the OPs post to does not stop you from utilising that information if you were in a similar situation and approached by someone pointing at the back of your bike using a supposedly eastern European language/accent. You would be out of there like a shot, as would everyone here. You wouldn't care a jot about perpetuating stereotypes and all that other stuff in your post, you would care only for your Garmin. The information would be more than detailed enough faced with a situation like that.

honesty wrote:Having said all that, I had not previously thought about my Garmin safety whilst stopped so the nub of the story is still relevant (though I am far less likely to come across circumstances where this could happen out here in the sticks). So you admit the post does have utility, but you would just have liked the OP to say a person, whose sex, age and accent is irrelevant and will not be divulged, apparently came up to someone and snatched their Garmin. That is about all that would be left of the post once you have removed these details. Should we not remove the location too, we don't want to malign the non-criminals of a particular area. Can't you see what this would do to the original post, all its utility would be removed.

Freddie wrote:pete75 wrote:1. I didn't say it was racist. Though rereading it I think the subtlety of the racism has escaped you.2. He's defending his description of an incident which he doesn't know happened. All he has to go on is hearsay.3. It's not his first post. In any case he's been posting here as recently as Tuesday this week, on this topic of course. It's gathering legs now though. In his first post it's somebody told him but in his last post it's gone from hearsay to fact - he says " I think it's clear to see that my intention was to pass on factual information "4. As 3 it wasn't his very first post.1. Subtle racism? I have to presume this eastern European gentleman was likely not black, so what you probably mean is xenophobia, still I don't see it. I don't go searching for these things, I think they are usually obvious when they are present, so maybe it is too subtle for me to gauge/or it is so subtle it doesn't exist, who can say? Occam's razor would probably be my answer2. It may well be hearsay, but what reason do you have to doubt the OP or that of the person that informed him. It seems like sensible information cyclists would share. The forum doesn't seem like an untapped source of potential xenophobics to recruit, mostly seemingly filled with people of a left leaning persuasion, so why would he bother posting such a thing to be malicious, it makes no sense. I think he was just passing on potentially useful information he has heard and hopes it may help some others.3. Well, it may well just be a slip of the tongue on his part. Are you always looking for nefarious intent in peoples posting, however subtle?

1. So only black people can suffer from racism? 2. I've no more reason to believe what he says than I have to doubt it. It's hearsay - it may have happened it may not have happened.3. Going from hearsay to fact is hardly a slip of the tongue. Somebody told me so and so did that is hearsay. I saw so and so do that is fact. The difference is hardly a subtle one.